CASE All Districts Online 2023-Moneyball (What are You Really Worth?): Applying Philanthropic Ethical Due Diligence Methods Across All Institutional Income

Moneyball (What are You Really Worth?): Applying Philanthropic Ethical Due Diligence Methods Across All Institutional Income
Back to course
Video Transcription
<b>Good afternoon and welcome to the All</b>  <b>Districts 2023 Conference in session</b>  <b>Moneyball. What are you really worth</b>  <b>applying philanthropic, ethical, due</b>  <b>diligence methods across all</b>  <b>institutional income. We will get started</b>  <b>shortly. Please note that this is a pre</b>  <b>recorded session, so Q&A will not occur.</b>  <b>However, feel free to utilize the Q&A box</b>  <b>to the right of the screen to converse</b>  <b>with fellow attendees. Thank you and join</b>  <b>me in welcoming David Scott.</b>  <b>Hello, welcome to my session on</b>  <b>Moneyball. What are you really worth?</b>  <b>This is about applying philanthropic,</b>  <b>ethical, due diligence and methods across</b>  <b>all institutional income, my name's David</b>  <b>Scott. I'm the Head of Research at</b>  <b>the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.</b>  <b>Actually we have guests. This is a pre</b>  <b>recording and I'm currently selling</b>  <b>myself in the lyrics and such a shame we</b>  <b>can't join you all. Also shame we can't</b>  <b>send you any any cookies or anything</b>  <b>to bribe you. So yeah thanks very</b>  <b>much for joingin this session. I will</b>  <b>give you some lessons learned from the</b>  <b>University of Edinburgh as we've looked</b>  <b>to adapt an existing philanthropic,</b>  <b>ethical, due diligence process across</b>  <b>all institutional income.</b>  <b>As an introduction, I'm here to</b>  <b>share what we've done and learned and</b>  <b>offer advice to those of you who are</b>  <b>interested in establishing or developing</b>  <b>an existing reputational due diligence</b>  <b>process. So who am I? I'm based in</b>  <b>Scotland. My names David Scott and I lead</b>  <b>to the prospective search function at the</b>  <b>University of Edinburgh as a Head of</b>  <b>Research and that covers prospect</b>  <b>identification, pipeline management,</b>  <b>research intelligence, and philanthropic</b>  <b>reputational due diligence. Which</b>  <b>I'll be talking to you all about today?</b>  <b>I've been at the university for nearly</b>  <b>five years and in the sector for nearly</b>  <b>20 years, and the Senate cheers me. A</b>  <b>regular departmental team meeting.</b>  <b>Hello to anybody who might recognize me</b>  <b>from April conference this past</b>  <b>and recent case conferences.</b>  <b>About background to the University of</b>  <b>Edinburgh. It was founded in 1583. It's</b>  <b>the 6th oldest university in English</b>  <b>speaking world and one of the four</b>  <b>Scottish Ancient Universities. It's</b>  <b>made-up of three colleges versus</b>  <b>arts, Humanities and social sciences.</b>  <b>We've saying one for science and</b>  <b>engineering and 1/3 formedicine and</b>  <b>veterinary medicine. Within these</b>  <b>ecologists there are 20 academic</b>  <b>schools. In total, the university</b>  <b>tracks around 35,000 students. Who come</b>  <b>from all corners of the globe, with the</b>  <b>majority of those not from the UK, from</b>  <b>China and the United States. So</b>  <b>the university receives over $250</b>  <b>millionin research</b>  <b>income annually and has one of the third</b>  <b>largest endowment of any UK university</b>  <b>after Oxford and Cambridge. That's worth</b>  <b>roughly $400 million. It should be</b>  <b>noted though that in 2021 are direct</b>  <b>tool investments in fossil fuels</b>  <b>is 0 the university. Does not hold any</b>  <b>direct sales and fossil fuel companies</b>  <b>and our code and tracker funds do not</b>  <b>invest by rightly.</b>  <b>I've not got the most up-to-date</b>  <b>philanthropic income statistics, but over</b>  <b>the past couple of years we've</b>  <b>averaged $150 million in philanthropic income with a team of 20 major gift fundraisers</b>  <b>sight</b>  <b>theof</b>    <b>adormant volcano. So that's about a</b>  <b>background to where I work, but I'm here</b>  <b>to talk about the lessons we've learned.</b>  <b>Yes, we contacted our existing</b>  <b>philanthropic ethical due diligence</b>  <b>process across all income.</b>  <b>So in this session, I'll share</b>  <b>insight into what we've done, what we've</b>  <b>learned for the benefit of those firstly</b>  <b>with existing reputational due diligence</b>  <b>processes and secondly offered advice to</b>  <b>those who are looking to establish a form</b>  <b>of reputational unethical due diligence.</b>  <b>And this is what we'll cover in this</b>  <b>session and what we do</b>  <b>at the University of Edinburgh. What's</b>  <b>worked for us, what we've</b>  <b>learned. What has not worked for</b>  <b>us but we still need to</b>  <b>do and what lessons</b>  <b>might apply to you,</b>  <b>still included. Resection about you. A we</b>  <b>wouldn't have Q&A because we're not live,</b>  <b>but hopefully this.</b>  <b>Covers everything that that we will</b>  <b>go over so.</b>  <b>The last thought Hope you're aware</b>  <b>and keeping ethical processes and</b>  <b>reputational considerations at the</b>  <b>forefront of your institution.</b>  <b>The importance of clarity on the</b>  <b>definitions of institutional income.</b>  <b>Through networks within the departments</b>  <b>across your institution and identifying</b>  <b>potential philanthropic opportunities.</b>  <b>Charming efficiencies and improvements</b>  <b>from a time consuming process and</b>  <b>hopefully learn from our experience to</b>  <b>apply to your organization regardless of</b>  <b>skill, budget and whether you have an</b>  <b>existing process or not. There will be</b>  <b>some film and movie references from</b>  <b>some very recent Irish movie.</b>  <b>I will not give you too much a sneak peek</b>  <b>into that as yet, but so hopefully keep</b>  <b>you on your doors so.</b>  <b>From your own alliance. These are some</b>  <b>issues that that have come up in in</b>  <b>recent press, some examples here in the</b>  <b>UK around universities</b>  <b>having risky ties to to China</b>  <b>or in some instances of.</b>  <b>That arts and cultural institutions</b>  <b>sponsorships from certain sectors.</b>  <b>And in this example here from January</b>  <b>about BP sponsorship of the Royal Opera</b>  <b>House ending after a number of years</b>  <b>and again something that</b>  <b>touches many lives. And the links</b>  <b>to the Sackler family</b>  <b>and what was previously in</b>  <b>February news that Oxford University</b>  <b>would continue ties with the</b>  <b>Sacklers to a very recent</b>  <b>update that they decided</b>  <b>to end. Someone with the the</b>  <b>side parts over the link with opioids,</b>  <b>That's a recent study from me.</b>  <b>So what do we do at</b>  <b>Edinburgh? I'll just give you an overview</b>  <b>of what we've set up</b>  <b>and hopefully that gives you a bit of an</b>  <b>idea that how it applies to the whole</b>  <b>institution. So</b>  <b>at the University of Edinburgh we have</b>  <b>what is called an Income Due Diligence</b>  <b>Group. It was established in 2022</b>  <b>Acronyms I DG We love an</b>  <b>acronym. It replaces us</b>  <b>solely philanthropically focused</b>  <b>group called Ethical Fundraising Advisory</b>  <b>Group and it has a broader</b>  <b>scope though that reviews all</b>  <b>institutional income. Now this covers</b>  <b>philanthropic, commercial, research,</b>  <b>contract and international</b>  <b>partnership agreements, so the group</b>  <b>considers and advises on whether the</b>  <b>sources and purposes of income are</b>  <b>ethically acceptable.</b>  <b>So I've got background principles.</b>  <b>Fighting the Jeep encourages proposals</b>  <b>for external income to move forward with</b>  <b>full confidence across the whole</b>  <b>institution. It's aimed to</b>  <b>protect academic freedom,</b>  <b>especially in instances where there may</b>  <b>be conflicts of interest</b>  <b>or where the funder is looking</b>  <b>to. Takes me</b>  <b>an impact on academic freedom.</b>  <b>He looked identify hidden potential</b>  <b>future risks for academic awards and</b>  <b>interference and so at some</b>  <b>stages, even at proposal stages before</b>  <b>proposals gets that's two reasons we</b>  <b>would have a look and evaluate potential</b>  <b>income. We're looking at protecting the</b>  <b>universities reputation ultimately we're</b>  <b>also balancing risk factors. So</b>  <b>there's a presumption because we're a</b>  <b>charitable we have charitable status that</b>  <b>will accept everything and that's not the</b>  <b>case and also demonstrate. All</b>  <b>stakeholders, so not just our external</b>  <b>donors or who we report to for our</b>  <b>our our charitable status, and also to</b>  <b>our students and staff, that we have the</b>  <b>appropriate mechanisms in place in line</b>  <b>with the values of the institution.</b>  <b>What is in a negative scope</b>  <b>for our group? We accept all</b>  <b>income from Scottish, UK and EU</b>  <b>governments and their agencies. They are</b>  <b>exempt from the process.</b>  <b>There's no issues there because there</b>  <b>have been received by these government</b>  <b>bodies. Funding from agreed pre</b>  <b>approved list of major research charities</b>  <b>are also exempt. This is something that's</b>  <b>been determined to save us a lot of time</b>  <b>and evaluating potential funders and this</b>  <b>is agreed in collaboration. With our</b>  <b>research office and initial light</b>  <b>touch chicks by the related support teams</b>  <b>across philanthropy, research</b>  <b>contracts, commercialization are</b>  <b>undertaken for individuals, companies,</b>  <b>non EU international governments and</b>  <b>their agencies, private foundations and</b>  <b>charities that are not on an exempt</b>  <b>list.</b>  <b>Representation and meeting</b>  <b>frequency of the group and</b>  <b>IDG memberships broadened to it's been</b>  <b>brought from the previous iteration to</b>  <b>include academic reputation, reputation,</b>  <b>academic representation from</b>  <b>a previous philanthropy focused</b>  <b>iteration. There wasn't academic</b>  <b>representation in the previous version,</b>  <b>so it's very important that we have that</b>  <b>150% of academic</b>  <b>representation the group. Was convened</b>  <b>by our Provost, who is effectively</b>  <b>our senior Vice principal with</b>  <b>a mix of academic and professional</b>  <b>services staff. There's also court</b>  <b>members who are principal reports to</b>  <b>and a student association</b>  <b>president as well. For student</b>  <b>representation, there's maximum</b>  <b>membership of 20 members of the group,</b>  <b>with the majority enshrined enshrined</b>  <b>as being academic representation.</b>  <b>It's formally 4 * a year, and they're</b>  <b>actually due to meet last Thursday as</b>  <b>well, so it's very up-to-the-minute in</b>  <b>terms of some of the the statistics I</b>  <b>have. Additional meetings can be</b>  <b>confirmed but can be convened for</b>  <b>urgent cases, and this</b>  <b>is my exception as well.</b>  <b>So institutional checks as</b>  <b>mentioned we apply across from</b>  <b>Tropic and that's within my area of</b>  <b>work. Within development alumni and my</b>  <b>team, we have a specific process,</b>  <b>research contracts, they go to Research</b>  <b>Services, commercial agreements go to</b>  <b>commercialization team who</b>  <b>complete their due diligence, typically</b>  <b>financial and I've also included in their</b>  <b>reputational details and our</b>  <b>international partnership agreements,</b>  <b>this is our globalization. And this is</b>  <b>very complicated. It does not look at</b>  <b>individual struts on a case by case</b>  <b>basis, but certainly there are greater</b>  <b>numbers of students or if there's</b>  <b>institutional partnerships overseas,</b>  <b>which is that into account.</b>  <b>So what does IG mean in</b>  <b>practice for our department and</b>  <b>fundraising? We have two</b>  <b>thresholds that we apply</b>  <b>our due diligence to. Gifts between</b>  <b>10,000 and half £1,000,000 or</b>  <b>that's twelve and a half $1000</b>  <b>to $620,000 and</b>  <b>above</b>  <b>half £1,000,000 orgifts in excess</b>  <b>of</b>  <b>$620,000, the</b>  <b>risk rating levels that apply to. Block</b>  <b>users can be reviewed. There are low,</b>  <b>medium and high. High being the riskiest</b>  <b>level, both being the lowest level.</b>  <b>We conduct to go keyword searches for</b>  <b>donations at the lower level of</b>  <b>£10,000 to half a million and those are</b>  <b>completed by our fundraisers or our</b>  <b>relationship leads in other areas like</b>  <b>touch due diligence summaries are</b>  <b>completed for all cases where risks are</b>  <b>highlighted. And these can be</b>  <b>approved by a fundraiser if none are</b>  <b>identified. Immediate</b>  <b>decision that can be approved or elevated</b>  <b>by our Director of Advanced Operations</b>  <b>can also be applied to.</b>  <b>Our Vice President of</b>  <b>Advancement or to Triage Group, I'll go</b>  <b>into these things in a bit more detail</b>  <b>throughout the the session, but the point</b>  <b>important point here is around the</b>  <b>committee decisions being made as quickly</b>  <b>as possible. Full due diligence</b>  <b>submissions however are completed for</b>  <b>those cases that are elevated to</b>  <b>ITG and those are typically high.</b>  <b>Levels, but in practice our</b>  <b>department 2 thresholds and</b>  <b>light touch searches to begin with 4 by 4</b>  <b>submissions for those are more</b>  <b>complicated. Just to give</b>  <b>it a little bit of an idea, I won't</b>  <b>develop on this page for too long given</b>  <b>the time that we've got together, but</b>  <b>this is basically a process flow chart</b>  <b>and for all new potential income to the</b>  <b>university, how it applies for the</b>  <b>initial light touch check.</b>  <b>And to this site I'll play</b>  <b>here and any risk of concern, any</b>  <b>risk there applying to the heater unit or</b>  <b>a school and if they have</b>  <b>any concerns and then pass the triage</b>  <b>group or the trial satisfied, yes</b>  <b>that can then be proceeded or</b>  <b>if they're not then goes to reference due</b>  <b>diligence. So I won't copy focus</b>  <b>on that for too long but I'm happy to</b>  <b>share these flights as with everything.</b>  <b>After the presentation. But this just</b>  <b>gives you a better overview of the main</b>  <b>process and that process points.</b>  <b>So.</b>  <b>Before we get into the meat of the</b>  <b>presentation, I want to give you some</b>  <b>very basic statistics for our department</b>  <b>since 2018. These are things up</b>  <b>to March that</b>  <b>was part of our financial year</b>  <b>. 923 organizations around</b>  <b>individuals have been reviewed, many were</b>  <b>the ones 923,</b>  <b>eight cases have been declined, so W</b>  <b>within 1%. Have been declined</b>  <b>overall 915 cases,</b>  <b>which is 99.1% This report had been</b>  <b>approved. So</b>  <b>create great majority of instances</b>  <b>that reflect that get approval a</b>  <b>very, very, very small number. Our</b>  <b>declined 32 records have been</b>  <b>approved but they have a higher risk</b>  <b>level. And that includes 3 cases that</b>  <b>have a county applied for relatively</b>  <b>checks, relative checks. So we</b>  <b>3.4% of the total leverage that</b>  <b>we've reviewed since 2018.</b>  <b>Half high risk levels</b>  <b>, 57 have been</b>  <b>improved, marked with medium</b>  <b>risk levels. And that again</b>  <b>equals 3 cases, with the caveat applied</b>  <b>for regular checks. 800 and</b>  <b>2689.5% total have</b>  <b>been approved and have a low risk level.</b>  <b>The great, great majority</b>  <b>are low risk levels of what</b>  <b>we of what we've reviewed, so.</b>  <b>Well done us. Let's go to the pub.</b>  <b>This is a picture of the benches of In</b>  <b>the Showroom terrific movie, and you'll</b>  <b>see some references to where the the</b>  <b>Breakout starts from that movie and the</b>  <b>next week the 2nd. But before we</b>  <b>dwell on our successes, we need to look</b>  <b>at what's worked for us at Edinburgh.</b>  <b>So let us go back in time</b>  <b>and who's this with? Jenny the donkey.</b>  <b>Jenny the donkey from the benches and the</b>  <b>children watch Star. What an absolute</b>  <b>star. Confuse this on the</b>  <b>journey with her. Ohh, yes, you might</b>  <b>recognize that the spectacle Bearded</b>  <b>Scotsman. Anyway, what did we do?</b>  <b>Where did we start? Often in 2020,</b>  <b>I'm sorry, 2012, the Ethical</b>  <b>Fundraising Advisory Group was</b>  <b>established, the predecessor to IDG.</b>  <b>This is where we reviewed significant</b>  <b>philanthropic proposals. It was chaired</b>  <b>by a former principal and Vice</b>  <b>Chancellor. It was effectively adult.</b>  <b>She stressed the principle by chancellor.</b>  <b>The same person, that is. Our boss.</b>  <b>That's our president.</b>  <b>Basically. A greater structure and</b>  <b>comprehensive process was required</b>  <b>following this and what was an adult</b>  <b>basis. So in 2012 this was really</b>  <b>stemmed from the roof report in the in</b>  <b>the UK which was the result of a</b>  <b>gift by the Gaddafi to</b>  <b>London Institution and receipt</b>  <b>for a</b>  <b>PhD degree.</b>  <b>So there are issues in the UK that led to</b>  <b>our adopting some</b>  <b>processes around repetition, due</b>  <b>diligence. But what we did was they</b>  <b>developed in 2017, they</b>  <b>give, I get a bit more robust structure.</b>  <b>So the advisory group was given</b>  <b>a greater degree of autonomy and there</b>  <b>was a wider representation in the group</b>  <b>reporting directly to our court.</b>  <b>It was chaired by our. Former senior vice</b>  <b>principal. The principal was no longer in</b>  <b>decision process. Now it's mainly for</b>  <b>transparency and for escalation in</b>  <b>certain cases. And it led to a</b>  <b>greater structure and robust policies</b>  <b>being introduced and also help to</b>  <b>develop institutional investment</b>  <b>exclusion lists. Now that the top I</b>  <b>mentioned that the university does not</b>  <b>invest in fossil fuel companies, we</b>  <b>have a list of exclusions, that of</b>  <b>areas that we do not want to</b>  <b>support. Typically within</b>  <b>tobacco and defence industries.</b>  <b>So in 2017 see the three gift</b>  <b>levels. I will ping through these without</b>  <b>overcomplicating the things. To</b>  <b>begin with we had three levels. The</b>  <b>top level were all potential gifts over</b>  <b>half a million pounds or two</b>  <b>hundred $620,000. Butthen in the</b>  <b>second level of potential difference</b>  <b>between £100,000 and half a million, they</b>  <b>then had a third level of</b>  <b>gifts from £5000 to</b>  <b>99,000.</b>  <b>ora</b>  <b>cumulative giving from 50K to 100</b>  <b>. KSo basically every gift over</b>  <b>6200 pounds had to be checked.</b>  <b>The score levels applied but they were</b>  <b>introduced for for risk scoring as I</b>  <b>mentioned the starting at low, high and</b>  <b>low, medium and high. We also included in</b>  <b>mitigation though. So actually judging</b>  <b>the potential proposals on their merits</b>  <b>and in terms of mitigation as well.</b>  <b>Eve Hag reviewed all level's every</b>  <b>single gift above half a million pounds</b>  <b>was reviewed and in addition to those</b>  <b>within the second and third levels</b>  <b>levels. You can see we're elevated if</b>  <b>they had a risk score</b>  <b>through submissions. Through submissions</b>  <b>were complete for all proposals for</b>  <b>levels A&B, every single gift</b>  <b>worth above £100,000 or $125,000</b>  <b>hadto have a full service, full risk</b>  <b>review, submission and level C</b>  <b>ones. So those gifts about £5000 or</b>  <b>$6000 roughly.</b>  <b>Where risks were shown had to have a full</b>  <b>check as well, so if approved</b>  <b>however. Owners were given a</b>  <b>two year period of grace and new full</b>  <b>submissions were required every time they</b>  <b>lapsed.</b>  <b>So what happened to 2017? Actually</b>  <b>resources and tools for use with slight</b>  <b>increase in budget for my department, and</b>  <b>this is specifically within philanthropic</b>  <b>Income. The process oversight</b>  <b>by a member of the research team in</b>  <b>theory of it was meant to be</b>  <b>40% of the role, in practice a</b>  <b>lot greater than that and there were full</b>  <b>search queries, checks and set up</b>  <b>on a very comprehensive. We also set up</b>  <b>an initial light. Touch check which is</b>  <b>based upon a sex world Google keyword</b>  <b>string go into that a bit more detail as</b>  <b>well, and</b>  <b>for however what was introduced for gifts</b>  <b>between 5000 pounds and just</b>  <b>under £100,000, therewas self approval</b>  <b>by fundraisers if there were</b>  <b>absolutely no risks showing from</b>  <b>a Google fee where S6 were keyword string</b>  <b>search, but only in instances where there</b>  <b>was absolutely no risks whatsoever.</b>  <b>However. The</b>  <b>potential for significant reputational</b>  <b>risks to the institution.</b>  <b>Effectively switched</b>  <b>to non philanthropic forums.</b>  <b>Of income and approved. The issues that</b>  <b>we referred to here were that if there</b>  <b>was a philanthropic gift and we had</b>  <b>issue, we may have had some colleagues or</b>  <b>academics who would ask the donors to</b>  <b>switch their donation to being at the</b>  <b>research contract. So that was a</b>  <b>potential issue and concern for</b>  <b>reputational risk to the institution.</b>  <b>And there were different areas applying</b>  <b>different checks. There wasn't a uniform</b>  <b>process across all income. What we were</b>  <b>applying to film philanthropic income was</b>  <b>not. Going elsewhere and it</b>  <b>wasn't a simple case of adopting the</b>  <b>Steps for Philanthropic Income review</b>  <b>either. It was extremely time consuming</b>  <b>to full submissions, Full submissions</b>  <b>which were done on everything</b>  <b>over £100,000 pluswhere risks</b>  <b>were identifiable for those in excess of</b>  <b>£5000 and every two years</b>  <b>could take hours. As a</b>  <b>result it took 80 to 90% of 1</b>  <b>staff members time and roughly 20 to</b>  <b>40% of time. Everyone else in the team</b>  <b>of five. Across the board</b>  <b>and the process applied to eflag, the</b>  <b>ethical funders and advisory group in</b>  <b>relation to philanthropic income</b>  <b>generally if you've just been positive by</b>  <b>the university leadership. So we were</b>  <b>tasked our resulted in a task and</b>  <b>finished working group being established</b>  <b>to basically resolve and recommend how</b>  <b>are the license we want can be applied</b>  <b>across the university. So we went into a</b>  <b>working group evaluation,</b>  <b>so a task and finish group was</b>  <b>established. This was set up in</b>  <b>2020. This was headed up</b>  <b>by my direct my, my my boss, my</b>  <b>gaffer who's our VP for advancement.</b>  <b>And there was also the Deputy University</b>  <b>Secretary, the Director of Axminster,</b>  <b>Arch Court Secretary and me</b>  <b>and consultative process involved</b>  <b>key internal stakeholders. As part of a</b>  <b>greater working group, we evaluated</b>  <b>current processes. We did process grant</b>  <b>review, we consulted on the next best</b>  <b>steps, made recommendations, and.</b>  <b>Installation to all institutional income</b>  <b>and this took place where a six month</b>  <b>period. So the university</b>  <b>executive thankfully approved what we</b>  <b>were recommending and approved the</b>  <b>instigation of across institutional</b>  <b>income due diligence group so.</b>  <b>Back in the present.</b>  <b>And you're being lovely, Jenny the</b>  <b>donkey. Where are we</b>  <b>now? So</b>  <b>as I mentioned we had previously</b>  <b>3 thresholds, we now have two.</b>  <b>As I mentioned the beginning give us</b>  <b>between £10,000 and half a million and a</b>  <b>half £1,000,000 and aboveapplied across</b>  <b>all income historic</b>  <b>cumulative giving as previously applied</b>  <b>is not counted. We only look at every</b>  <b>proposal as they come and this Google</b>  <b>keyword searches for 10,000 to half a</b>  <b>half £1,000,000 and those are conducted</b>  <b>by the relationship lead. They can be</b>  <b>approved if no risks are identified</b>  <b>within two or three pages in Google, but</b>  <b>any that are but all, sorry, all</b>  <b>the all checks. Even if there are risks</b>  <b>or not, risks need to be reported and</b>  <b>reported initial light</b>  <b>touch submissions. I'll show you these</b>  <b>pages and like later on, but any</b>  <b>light touch submissions or risk or</b>  <b>highlighted or risk or highlighted or</b>  <b>proposal is greater than half a</b>  <b>million pounds. As conducted to begin</b>  <b>with by my team for philanthropic</b>  <b>research and in other areas those are</b>  <b>separate. Where the gift proposal</b>  <b>is greater than half a million pounds is</b>  <b>taking up elsewhere. Due</b>  <b>diligence has a risk rating level, so</b>  <b>these are applied to all cases reviewed</b>  <b>across university, though we do, High</b>  <b>immediate decision can be made by head of</b>  <b>unit. And and</b>  <b>delegated to other areas or</b>  <b>padded handed to triage group for final</b>  <b>decision before elevation to ITG. If</b>  <b>they can't make a decision full due</b>  <b>diligence is only when they're</b>  <b>elevated to ITG when</b>  <b>significant risks are identified. So if</b>  <b>you go back to process flow chart if we</b>  <b>do it conduct just a critical keyword</b>  <b>search and there's immediately</b>  <b>significant risk. So risk showing</b>  <b>it's only then we can see right. Thought</b>  <b>you diligence can be applied here</b>  <b>immediately to to the group and central</b>  <b>oversight is by a separate secretary to</b>  <b>ITG rather than across different units.</b>  <b>So. With our keyword search</b>  <b>googles our framed got to love about</b>  <b>Google. In this basis we apply this.</b>  <b>Simple 6 keywords across our</b>  <b>checks. We've tested this out against</b>  <b>when we were doing the the the working</b>  <b>tests against 200</b>  <b>instances of high,</b>  <b>medium and low risk cases and</b>  <b>98% of cases are actually 100%</b>  <b>witha margin of error.</b>  <b>We brought up the risks that we reviewed</b>  <b>and that and a keyword search</b>  <b>stream within 3 pages of Google. So</b>  <b>simply by applying the name of the</b>  <b>individual or the ultimate source of</b>  <b>funding within a bracketed billion</b>  <b>search. Applying this to Google, we</b>  <b>bring up the risks. Making sure not to</b>  <b>sign or making sure to sign out from your</b>  <b>Google account so not to influence your</b>  <b>search history on what you were looking</b>  <b>for. Stressing to add that</b>  <b>Chrome and Firefox much more.</b>  <b>Reliable certainly being</b>  <b>quite challenging to use that as a search</b>  <b>engine. So Google found this to be very</b>  <b>straightforward. Anyway, on completing</b>  <b>that, if we find any any issues, we have</b>  <b>a light touch submission. This is in the</b>  <b>very basic form what our light touch</b>  <b>submission is. This is typically A1 page</b>  <b>document that's complete in 15 to 20</b>  <b>minutes. Really straightforward. If we</b>  <b>find any risks, it's basically opening</b>  <b>across a brief synopsis from a patient</b>  <b>who found into this submission. So</b>  <b>we have the same here. We include</b>  <b>the pier is the current status of the</b>  <b>approach. We apply an immediate risk</b>  <b>level if we feel, yeah this is this is</b>  <b>pretty low from what's here or medium or</b>  <b>high. A brief summary to the background</b>  <b>on Thunder and where we know our where</b>  <b>it's likely that underlying source of</b>  <b>funding is. And finally any</b>  <b>matters of public interest. These are</b>  <b>results from agriculture research that</b>  <b>would be added here and here's. Compiled</b>  <b>that unclear approved. As I said, this</b>  <b>whole thing would roughly take from start</b>  <b>to finish, 15 to 20 minutes.</b>  <b>Our restrictions of which there are low</b>  <b>risk rating and a bit more detail and</b>  <b>that's where there's no risk identified</b>  <b>or previously in history once there's</b>  <b>been a minor rumor or speculation.</b>  <b>Medium level, That's where the</b>  <b>significant rumor or speculation, and</b>  <b>there are where there's been a standard</b>  <b>fine or public admonishment</b>  <b>by the person who's received that point.</b>  <b>The high risks are unproven</b>  <b>or proven accusations of serious</b>  <b>illegal activity.</b>  <b>So that's where the those risk ratings</b>  <b>are applied and they're also</b>  <b>applied to individuals or organizations</b>  <b>closely associated with the funder. So</b>  <b>that's either companies that they own,</b>  <b>they work for. If you're a corporate</b>  <b>foundation, you are judged the</b>  <b>same as you would be as the corporate</b>  <b>entity that you're linked</b>  <b>to, even in instances where</b>  <b>a foundation has been set up, separate</b>  <b>and independent review both.</b>  <b>And this is where we get into our fuel 2</b>  <b>telligence instances where we</b>  <b>have high risks. This is a fool</b>  <b>of valuation over proposed funder.</b>  <b>And the key aspects that we look at here</b>  <b>are the risks, which is again the summary</b>  <b>background and likely known underlying</b>  <b>source of funding. Look at the matters of</b>  <b>public interest, which directly to the</b>  <b>funder and to the underlying source of</b>  <b>funding. Look at potential family and</b>  <b>business, our potential conflicts of</b>  <b>interest as well the mitigation. As I</b>  <b>mentioned, the things that we take into</b>  <b>account to to maybe take the score and to</b>  <b>put more appropriate review, we</b>  <b>look at somebody with donations elsewhere</b>  <b>and we look at somebody of previous study</b>  <b>and sort of previous income to our</b>  <b>university. Shows us where</b>  <b>we look at the purpose of the income,</b>  <b>what benefit is it actually going to be</b>  <b>to the university and to the</b>  <b>wider, the wider world. And the bridge is</b>  <b>aligned to the strategic goals to the</b>  <b>university. So those are all within</b>  <b>mitigation. So here is just a quick</b>  <b>screenshot of our</b>  <b>templates that we have for a full</b>  <b>submission. As you can see, there's 17</b>  <b>parts to this, quite</b>  <b>comprehensive when we look at. You know,</b>  <b>we included refresh now for the risk</b>  <b>rating if it hasn't been</b>  <b>flagged with the relevant hedge of</b>  <b>colleges or schools.</b>  <b>Other brief summary, it is very, very</b>  <b>comprehensive form.</b>  <b>Roughly I forget whether I cover this in</b>  <b>later slide, but you're talking into</b>  <b>between 2:00 and upwards of 10 hours plus</b>  <b>some instances we have had corporate</b>  <b>proposals. The documentation</b>  <b>has been in one instance</b>  <b>35 pages long and</b>  <b>the number of hours used in that is quite</b>  <b>considerable. That's why the full</b>  <b>submissions that previously taken so long</b>  <b>and to apply them. Into our point to</b>  <b>touch once and so that is the form</b>  <b>there. I'll then go on to the</b>  <b>next part which that the research focus</b>  <b>that we do within each area. I'll be very</b>  <b>brief here. This is where we look at for</b>  <b>individuals, for companies and</b>  <b>foundations. We check events, the</b>  <b>individuals, if there's a person that's</b>  <b>linked directly to all through all three,</b>  <b>the source of funding, the slightly</b>  <b>different thing we look at is obviously</b>  <b>our office spacers, sorry office bearers</b>  <b>that doesn't apply to an individual. As</b>  <b>an office period, but certainly to</b>  <b>companies into foundations and trusts</b>  <b>against CSR policies with those in terms</b>  <b>of companies and also circles of friends</b>  <b>or associates, both individuals and</b>  <b>foundations. And again the sources of</b>  <b>funding. These are the main sources that</b>  <b>we use, either subscriptions that we pay</b>  <b>for or free to access</b>  <b>through generally through the</b>  <b>Internet. Just some time examples to note</b>  <b>our corporate watch, the UN Global</b>  <b>Compact, this is Human Rights Resource</b>  <b>Centre. And Foundation Centre</b>  <b>USA. Other sources are relevant.</b>  <b>Uh we also look at US state business</b>  <b>records as well. So what</b>  <b>series that we applied with the companies</b>  <b>Foundation Trust and individuals next</b>  <b>slide Spectral on here, but this is just</b>  <b>one part of a much, much full string of</b>  <b>words that you use. I think it's roughly</b>  <b>about 1819 words in total that</b>  <b>we use and combine within our full, full,</b>  <b>full, full, full, full keyword search</b>  <b>rather than just our sets forth to</b>  <b>Google, but generally find that the</b>  <b>keyword to Google search is cover</b>  <b>everything. This and the other words</b>  <b>that we apply we put through. Other</b>  <b>than Jones Risk Centre to bring up</b>  <b>any news articles, we use that resource</b>  <b>and there were 30,000 publications</b>  <b>in a variety of languages to identify any</b>  <b>potential risks. So that's an overview of</b>  <b>our full submission. So</b>  <b>what have we learned about Edinburgh as</b>  <b>we've gone through the application to the</b>  <b>to setting up across institutional,</b>  <b>philanthropic, sorry, cross institutional</b>  <b>reputational risk basis. What we've</b>  <b>learned is the importance of board</b>  <b>representation, and the representation in</b>  <b>the group has to have a broad reflection</b>  <b>of the leadership and the university</b>  <b>community. We have to make sure that each</b>  <b>of the university ecologists have</b>  <b>mentioned the very beginning were</b>  <b>represented. Ideally, we want to have</b>  <b>board members who are experts in their</b>  <b>fields and unbiased as well,</b>  <b>and they need to be offering oversight to</b>  <b>bring any new members up to speed.</b>  <b>And they also we also</b>  <b>provide, they also need to be we are</b>  <b>ready to provide them with guidance and</b>  <b>previous iterations decisions by</b>  <b>sector. We give them a synopsis for the</b>  <b>previous version around tech, pharma,</b>  <b>finance, fossil fuels so that the the</b>  <b>group especially when your members get an</b>  <b>understanding of what the previous</b>  <b>iteration for philanthropic</b>  <b>income reviewed and checked</b>  <b>against their work. The meeting</b>  <b>is thankfully for these. Because of the</b>  <b>the number of board members of board</b>  <b>represent representatives and the</b>  <b>meetings are agreed one year in advance.</b>  <b>Previously they were ad hoc. There was a</b>  <b>huge impact on my team and team in terms</b>  <b>of our planning. We've also learned,</b>  <b>as I mentioned, the confidence in our</b>  <b>keyword searches. As I mentioned</b>  <b>previously, reviewed about 200 rather than</b>  <b>100. Artists of</b>  <b>against some significant risks.</b>  <b>Not work provides a lot of assurances to</b>  <b>the working group head of schools that</b>  <b>the keyword flag the risks. As I mentioned</b>  <b>98% success rate, pretty much a</b>  <b>hundred 100% 8 only</b>  <b>declines out of 800 sorry 900</b>  <b>tweets using H star. So again less than</b>  <b>1% risk of serious concern</b>  <b>and confidence in our fundraiser</b>  <b>relationship. Leading their self reviews</b>  <b>and approvals, we had a lot of confidence</b>  <b>that our fundraisers would be able to.</b>  <b>Let us know if we encountered any</b>  <b>potential risk from the first first chase</b>  <b>as a result. That's</b>  <b>led to less bureaucracy. So</b>  <b>we've had a greater autonomy for our</b>  <b>fundraisers to self approve gifts of less</b>  <b>than half million pounds, financial</b>  <b>limits, ties with the budgetary limits to</b>  <b>their heads of school or heads of the</b>  <b>units. So this is very, very good from</b>  <b>our perspective that the thresholds that</b>  <b>we have applied specific to their</b>  <b>budgetary limits. So again they can make</b>  <b>a decision if it's under</b>  <b>half £1,000,000 and there's they can make</b>  <b>that decision but they have to report</b>  <b>back to the group again. Is a clearer</b>  <b>definition as well from the bureaucracy,</b>  <b>less bureaucracy around our excluded and</b>  <b>pre approved list. This is available to</b>  <b>to staff to let them</b>  <b>aware of which ones they do not need to</b>  <b>be conducted for their checks.</b>  <b>Internal clarification, you can</b>  <b>accelerate decisions for light touch</b>  <b>submissions. Again, that's been</b>  <b>shared. Who can put those through quickly?</b>  <b>Again, they're talking about report to</b>  <b>the group and we have an online</b>  <b>submission form setup for all</b>  <b>cases for potential risk that immediately</b>  <b>gets put into our our inbox to to apply</b>  <b>and that's linked into our Ms. Teams</b>  <b>sites for allocation and communication</b>  <b>across the university. It's a</b>  <b>significant time saver as well. As I</b>  <b>mentioned, the full due diligence is</b>  <b>submission took between either between</b>  <b>10:00 and 2:00 and 10:00 plus hours to</b>  <b>complete and now it's only for those that</b>  <b>have a significant risk. So the Light</b>  <b>Touch submission as I mentioned,</b>  <b>typically it's actually less than 30</b>  <b>minutes now for conducting that. We've</b>  <b>had far fewer full due diligence</b>  <b>submissions. There's been a 70%</b>  <b>reduction in the submission side of the G</b>  <b>This is a significant saving. In</b>  <b>time and the last the past</b>  <b>year, they've reviewed 9 full</b>  <b>submission submissions and</b>  <b>45 light touch submissions.</b>  <b>In the previous year that the previous</b>  <b>iteration reviewed 31 full</b>  <b>submissions, so a drop from 31 full</b>  <b>submissions to 9 two submissions.</b>  <b>They also had 74 additional food reports,</b>  <b>so 105 . completedIn total,</b>  <b>there's a 91.4%.</b>  <b>Reduction in the number of full</b>  <b>submissions compiled and reviewed by</b>  <b>that group.</b>  <b>The focus on completing the light touch</b>  <b>checks in the first instance for all</b>  <b>cases really helped to save a</b>  <b>lot of time. And she was just</b>  <b>giving us, well, no longer being</b>  <b>required. I have reduced all ofreporting.</b>  <b>And most importantly for my team member,</b>  <b>excuse me is that that 80%</b>  <b>of their role is now down to roughly about</b>  <b>50% and and</b>  <b>it's also had a significant impact on the</b>  <b>rest of the team, don't maybe about 20%</b>  <b>of the role, but typically far less time</b>  <b>that we need to focus on that.</b>  <b>Excuse me, Another huge benefit</b>  <b>has been a greater clarity on decision</b>  <b>making. So across the university heads of</b>  <b>school and units, they can effectively</b>  <b>improve all income. As mentioned, contact</b>  <b>with my parents if they're satisfied and</b>  <b>they can they can approve it. As always</b>  <b>identifies aligns with their</b>  <b>approval privileges and you can</b>  <b>refer to triage group in cases that are</b>  <b>less clear or require input in our</b>  <b>department or the delegation of task. For</b>  <b>efficient and prompt decisions you'll see</b>  <b>here go to our. Paper</b>  <b>for Advancement. Or</b>  <b>or can be escalated directly to</b>  <b>IDGAF. There are significant risks</b>  <b>or refer to the triage group. We've</b>  <b>simplified this process by not look</b>  <b>simplified here, but if we moved a big</b>  <b>barrier to make pretty much immediate</b>  <b>decisions. And as I mentioned back at the</b>  <b>beginning, the number of cases that have</b>  <b>high risk levels are not very high by</b>  <b>comparison. I'm actually the triage</b>  <b>group. Triage builds are really important</b>  <b>part as a brains trust. So</b>  <b>these consider cases escalated</b>  <b>by the relevant head of school board unit</b>  <b>and this is compared composed of senior</b>  <b>staff from each institutional income</b>  <b>area. As I mentioned the beginning</b>  <b>philanthropy research contract,</b>  <b>commercial agreement, international</b>  <b>partnership agreements and another member</b>  <b>of that tradition is our secretary to the</b>  <b>group who is abnormal voting member</b>  <b>effectively act as as Admiral. My</b>  <b>advisors and they can decide to</b>  <b>immediately approve or</b>  <b>or recommend for escalation, or</b>  <b>offer advice as well to heads of school</b>  <b>or units. And those meetings</b>  <b>are as required or tend to be just by</b>  <b>e-mail. So very straightforward process</b>  <b>there. There was a</b>  <b>practitioner groups, I'm a member. We've</b>  <b>established practitioner group. We're</b>  <b>effectively the heads of the the</b>  <b>reporting for each area. So myself within</b>  <b>philanthropy and some of our contacts</b>  <b>across the research, commercial</b>  <b>agreements and international</b>  <b>partnerships. So each area we kind of</b>  <b>manage our our, our our</b>  <b>partner Mr. fundraisers, our</b>  <b>partnership leads to apply their keyword</b>  <b>searches and applied checks and notices</b>  <b>would provide regular support. And we</b>  <b>share information across the net,</b>  <b>especially when we have cases of medium</b>  <b>or high risk that may be applicable to</b>  <b>other areas as well in terms</b>  <b>of proposals. So for instance, if we have</b>  <b>a tech, a tech company who have given us</b>  <b>a phone through donation and separately</b>  <b>are looking to provide a research</b>  <b>contract would be notified.</b>  <b>On each other, if there's any. And you</b>  <b>report to ID G Secretary</b>  <b>with our approval updates or immediately</b>  <b>notify them of any instances of higher</b>  <b>risks or proposals above half a million</b>  <b>pounds. Are</b>  <b>authorized exemptions. This is also</b>  <b>something that is able to be established</b>  <b>through our working plan group. So as I</b>  <b>mentioned at the very top, income from</b>  <b>the EU, UK public bodies,</b>  <b>so that includes the UK and Scottish</b>  <b>governments and their agencies are</b>  <b>exempted. There's no point in us looking</b>  <b>into them because it's government and as</b>  <b>far as we're concerned that is fine and</b>  <b>specific. EU and UK recognised search</b>  <b>charities are recorded on pre approved</b>  <b>list which we'll share in a second. And</b>  <b>funders who have the status of currently</b>  <b>approved are updated.</b>  <b>And help with secretary for reference</b>  <b>there's currently a need to know basis on</b>  <b>those partners but that's something that</b>  <b>we're looking to resolve soon. So here's</b>  <b>an interesting example of some of the pre</b>  <b>approval. It's not everybody that's</b>  <b>listed here but this is just an example</b>  <b>of the type of ones we work</b>  <b>with. There's no point in this search</b>  <b>like doing any such checks on our</b>  <b>Alzheimer's Research UK or British Heart</b>  <b>Foundation Cancer Research who have a</b>  <b>huge partnership with the university risk</b>  <b>we don't need to conduct. Research and</b>  <b>due diligence and and those companies we</b>  <b>have this partnerships. So</b>  <b>there we go very briefly we do</b>  <b>have an amber list as well. So these are</b>  <b>where we have.</b>  <b>The three cases that I mentioned have</b>  <b>been approved. This special caveat, two</b>  <b>of these are are higher risk level, one</b>  <b>is medium, one is medium and</b>  <b>that is where.</b>  <b>We've got regular instances of multiple</b>  <b>project funding where I did GP notified.</b>  <b>So rather than us submitting multiple</b>  <b>cases of receiving funding from these,</b>  <b>these the organisations</b>  <b>or individuals, they're receiving them</b>  <b>every, every quarter for instance,</b>  <b>there's no point you're completely</b>  <b>submitting a a full submission every</b>  <b>time, but it's basically this ambulance</b>  <b>has been established so that we can check</b>  <b>back, but we kind of review their more</b>  <b>more loosely on a on a</b>  <b>year by year basis. So they only require</b>  <b>a date specific like touch checks for</b>  <b>that. So what has</b>  <b>not worked for us at</b>  <b>Edinburgh?</b>  <b>So the key issues that we've had, I'll</b>  <b>keep this very brief, Senior leadership</b>  <b>turnover and important decisions were</b>  <b>placed on hold because of it's obviously</b>  <b>just moving this slight tissues and</b>  <b>confusion which the internal group over</b>  <b>which the eternal group had specific</b>  <b>oversight. Other issues around</b>  <b>Maverick flying in academics,</b>  <b>potentially not disclosing discussions</b>  <b>until the last minute, we had a number of</b>  <b>instances like that. And</b>  <b>staffing a huge strain of staff</b>  <b>commitments, specifically within my team</b>  <b>or directly. There was no central</b>  <b>delegate dedicated task. The staff, sorry</b>  <b>the IDG secretive group had</b>  <b>has other responsibilities. It's a very</b>  <b>vital role. We're relying on goodwill.</b>  <b>And there's no replacement or or</b>  <b>for academic Research Services, and time</b>  <b>spent reviewing and amending processes</b>  <b>took a lot of lot of time.</b>  <b>Communications as well internally as lack</b>  <b>of clarity and a key issue there on</b>  <b>decision sharing if the decision has been</b>  <b>made. How quickly will that be made</b>  <b>to the key, the key internal people</b>  <b>budget, huge issue and budget</b>  <b>it's basically on the basis of</b>  <b>sharing resources from one particular</b>  <b>area at the moment which is my area and</b>  <b>no additional budget there. That's quite</b>  <b>a stretch in terms of</b>  <b>managing that for</b>  <b>especially for subscriptions and other</b>  <b>pressures. We we installed a new CRM</b>  <b>project and. As well as continuing review</b>  <b>processes, pandemic as well, so.</b>  <b>The key point is what do we still</b>  <b>need to do?</b>  <b>We need to work more closely with other</b>  <b>practitioners as I said and myself and</b>  <b>other leaders within research contracts</b>  <b>or commercialization or international</b>  <b>partnerships. It's positive first steps</b>  <b>to people in other units, but this needs</b>  <b>to be some approval there. We need to</b>  <b>we've had some challenging discussions</b>  <b>that we need to improve and we need to</b>  <b>we do not have an institution wide CRM.</b>  <b>This basically shared on a need to know</b>  <b>basis the ones that are are not approved.</b>  <b>Are currently approved. This needs to be</b>  <b>approved. We need to have a clearer</b>  <b>messaging on responsibilities and an</b>  <b>income types. So we need to create a</b>  <b>clarity in our internal communications to</b>  <b>academic colleagues as well so they get a</b>  <b>greater understanding of what's been</b>  <b>approved. Knowing the</b>  <b>communication of decisions, so</b>  <b>at an ID general with IDG level for</b>  <b>giving gifts or proposals over</b>  <b>half £1,000,000, thereneeds to be a</b>  <b>clear line of dialogue for decisions</b>  <b>following their decisions of the group</b>  <b>and issues that unit levels as</b>  <b>well. This is dependent on the</b>  <b>availability of the person that made</b>  <b>those decisions. For the initial</b>  <b>decisions, so you are on the basis of how</b>  <b>available they are or whether they're</b>  <b>they're they're at work or or not</b>  <b>and there's still need to work on</b>  <b>training across the board and that links</b>  <b>in with the budget. And again</b>  <b>there's no centralized units. We don't</b>  <b>have a dedicated staff and resources to</b>  <b>do this yet. Nearly</b>  <b>there. Back to Gender the Donkey.</b>  <b>Finally there, finally, still with me,</b>  <b>hopefully. So what</b>  <b>lessons might be able to apply to your</b>  <b>staff? I will try to keep this final</b>  <b>section as brief as possible.</b>  <b>Here's just a quick overview of the</b>  <b>license that you can apply for</b>  <b>leadership. And according to</b>  <b>transparency,</b>  <b>representation, consultation,</b>  <b>exemptions. The West from</b>  <b>having one size fit all the lesser</b>  <b>from having two tiers. The lessons from</b>  <b>keywords and our lessons from</b>  <b>budget. So. The key</b>  <b>lessons from leadership, having an</b>  <b>institutional sponsorship, a sponsor for</b>  <b>it has been key. It's about getting</b>  <b>leadership by and having our Provost and</b>  <b>our vice president. And place</b>  <b>as a configuring cool convener has really</b>  <b>made a huge difference. Getting</b>  <b>institutional buy in without having that</b>  <b>it would mean to this so much more</b>  <b>difficult. Got to have an institutional</b>  <b>commitment to supporting ethical and</b>  <b>reputational reviews. And they have to be</b>  <b>independent, they have to be unbiased and</b>  <b>they have to have a power to implement</b>  <b>decisions as well. They can't just be</b>  <b>unmuted. For the</b>  <b>lessons around transparency.</b>  <b>So the approach and our decisions have to</b>  <b>be transparent for</b>  <b>internal integrity. And</b>  <b>also for our external reputation</b>  <b>and this affects our status as a public</b>  <b>authority in the UK, specifically in</b>  <b>Scotland and the broader you can we have</b>  <b>Freedom of Information laws in Scotland</b>  <b>Those laws are slightly more robust or</b>  <b>they're slightly more stringent I should</b>  <b>say. So we have to be</b>  <b>open to sharing our information, our own</b>  <b>our decisions if passed,</b>  <b>we also have an an internal clarity on</b>  <b>declined decisions. That's something</b>  <b>that's a key lesson on, on</b>  <b>transparency. We have yet to perfect that</b>  <b>decline decision. However, we are clear</b>  <b>on what we exclude in terms of</b>  <b>tobacco and fossil fuels. I mentioned our</b>  <b>partnership with Cancer Research UK.</b>  <b>That's the reason why we do not accept</b>  <b>gifts from tobacco companies,</b>  <b>irrespective of what research area that</b>  <b>that goes towards. So</b>  <b>one thing to check is this, your</b>  <b>organization have an investment</b>  <b>exclusions policy as well that is</b>  <b>something that's very key within our our</b>  <b>native work as I mentioned the very</b>  <b>beginning in terms of fossil fuel</b>  <b>investments and also in terms</b>  <b>of certain types of</b>  <b>defence companies as well.</b>  <b>For the lesson around representation</b>  <b>within the group, it should reflect a</b>  <b>broad base of your university community.</b>  <b>Ideally, senior academic writing</b>  <b>presentation has to be there, senior</b>  <b>professional staff and leaders in the</b>  <b>field as well governing body</b>  <b>representation within our institution.</b>  <b>It's court, so having a chief court</b>  <b>present is is invaluable. And also</b>  <b>importantly, having a student Association</b>  <b>representative as well.</b>  <b>Having a consultative approach is</b>  <b>important. It's important having internal</b>  <b>network of practitioners it's a great</b>  <b>opportunity to make connections within</b>  <b>the the the broader university. We've</b>  <b>been able to determine some previously</b>  <b>and and known external relationships with</b>  <b>benefited our philanthropic</b>  <b>aims. When we found out that we've been</b>  <b>able to to determine whether there have</b>  <b>been links and introductions made</b>  <b>and it's a method in the means this year.</b>  <b>Questions as well offered advice and</b>  <b>determine our aligned decision making and</b>  <b>having the triage and the the brains</b>  <b>trust for advice and decisions and</b>  <b>escalations has really been an</b>  <b>informative way of making swift decisions</b>  <b>rather than wait for every quarter for</b>  <b>those meetings to be met.</b>  <b>Having confirmed exemptions are pre</b>  <b>approved lists. They've been invaluable</b>  <b>as well. Again at least academic</b>  <b>concerns on bureaucracy. It lets them</b>  <b>know that great, I don't need to, don't</b>  <b>need to have an issue with this. We can,</b>  <b>we can continue. It saves a lot of time</b>  <b>as well which is key from our side of</b>  <b>things having a one-size-fits-</b>  <b>all approach, so not having a different</b>  <b>approach for different area, having one</b>  <b>size of basically level of approval</b>  <b>linked to our existing budget</b>  <b>responsibilities. Has been</b>  <b>significant. Everything under</b>  <b>half a million pounds can effectively be</b>  <b>signed off as long as any risk have been</b>  <b>highlighted. However, any gives an</b>  <b>excess of that have to be approved.</b>  <b>Applying uniform risk levels and</b>  <b>subsequent relevant robust checks across</b>  <b>all areas is quite important and having a</b>  <b>process which reflects a priority risks</b>  <b>for each area. So</b>  <b>yeah, we're fighting the share of the</b>  <b>unique factors for each area in terms</b>  <b>of commercial financial stability, sector</b>  <b>specific approach and geopolitical</b>  <b>considerations. 2</b>  <b>tiers. Of</b>  <b>thresholds, so again.</b>  <b>For which you left, so if that's</b>  <b>mentioned, it's simplified. And it's like</b>  <b>proposal by proposal basis. It's not just</b>  <b>every two years or in cumulative guests,</b>  <b>it's a proposal for proposal basis. Our</b>  <b>two tiers of submissions, our light</b>  <b>submissions and our full submission and</b>  <b>also our two tiers of decisions,</b>  <b>decisions made by the head of group or</b>  <b>triage or by ITG makes</b>  <b>it far more simplified rather than</b>  <b>everything having to go through the</b>  <b>covenant of ITG for all</b>  <b>cases of risk.</b>  <b>License and keywords. We find them</b>  <b>extremely reliable. It's a very</b>  <b>straightforward process that we apply and</b>  <b>we find that our certainly our</b>  <b>fundraisers or our project or</b>  <b>partner leads find them very</b>  <b>straightforward to use and it saves a lot</b>  <b>of time in the process.</b>  <b>And budget What</b>  <b>resources do you already use? What's</b>  <b>resources can you apply? What can your</b>  <b>budget stretch to? Far. There's a number</b>  <b>of publicly available resources that you</b>  <b>can use, but is there anything within</b>  <b>your institution, within your library</b>  <b>database, that you can apply and save a</b>  <b>lot of time and money?</b>  <b>Do use a trusted freelancer for</b>  <b>some. For some complex cases that</b>  <b>had, that has taken a lot of time and</b>  <b>effort, but those are usually typically</b>  <b>in the examples where you're going into</b>  <b>10s of pages and more complicated.</b>  <b>Indicated use research, but</b>  <b>budget as something that's key as well.</b>  <b>You'll be glad to know we're done(key).</b>  <b>That system. Thank you so much for</b>  <b>your time. There's little denying that</b>  <b>Donkey wishing you all well,</b>  <b>before we head off. Hopefully you've</b>  <b>stuck with me. I know there's quite a</b>  <b>lot, but I've got to say thank you</b>  <b>for your time as well. I'd</b>  <b>normally ask you to come forward with any</b>  <b>questions, but seeing as I'm a</b>  <b>recording then please feel free to</b>  <b>contact me at the addresses shown. If</b>  <b>you've got any questions about the</b>  <b>presentation that you'd like me to reply</b>  <b>to. I also want to say a word of thanks</b>  <b>to Rich Nickel and Kristi Grim</b>  <b>CASE who have helped to facilitate this</b>  <b>recording, and I hope this session has</b>  <b>been of use to those of you have joined</b>  <b>it. Apologies once again that I couldn't join</b>  <b>you in person, but I hope you enjoy the</b>  <b>rest of your conference. Take care.</b>  <b>Thank you, David for a great presentation</b>  <b>and thank you to all of our attendees for</b>  <b>joining today. Before you go, if you</b>  <b>haven't yet completed the session</b>  <b>evaluation, please do so and you can</b>  <b>return to the agenda to find your next</b>  <b>session.</b>
Asset Caption
CASE Career Level: 4-6
CASE Competencies: Integrity and Professionalism